Public comment was held first. Residents and stakeholders expressed concerns about zoning designations, historic preservation, and development standards. Residents from the Ben Hughes neighborhood requested their area be designated LUR-1, citing misapplication of amenity-based planning and commuter trail criteria. Some opposed amendments that would remove or weaken historic overlays at Fort Missoula, emphasizing deed restrictions, preservation mandates, and the site’s national significance, particularly its role in WWII Japanese American internment. Others argued against restrictive overlays and design standards, citing fairness, property rights, and compliance with state law, while suggesting overlays focus on design rather than land use. A commenter advocated for higher floor area ratios to prevent sprawl and support infill development. Another commenter urged maintaining pedestrian-oriented standards in mixed-use zones to promote walkability, health, and community cohesion.
Staff presented a final set of administrative cleanups and clarifications to the Unified Development Code (UDC), zoning map, and land use plan. These updates primarily address errors and oversights but also incorporate feedback from public comments and coordination with the airport authority. Key changes include clarifying how accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are treated under the new code, noting that while ADUs are no longer listed as a separate building type, they are effectively replaced by allowances for one-unit houses and duplexes in residential districts. Amendments also address transparency standards for mixed-use districts by exempting parking structures from glass requirements while maintaining ventilation openings. Staff recommended simplifying neighborhood commercial regulations by removing the separate floor area ratio (FAR) and relying on a maximum size cap, continuing the increased size limit, and exempting neighborhood commercial uses from residential FAR calculations to reduce complexity. Additional updates include applying interior landscaping standards to downtown parking lots to mitigate heat impacts while exempting parking structures from perimeter landscaping requirements, clarifying subdivision rules for districts with density maximums by allowing lots based on permitted dwelling units rather than minimum parcel size, and requiring right-of-way improvements for mixed-use projects to ensure pedestrian access. Finally, land use plan amendments add language identifying a potential second airport runway as a constraint or hazard to guide future density and development decisions.
Staff also outlined several zoning map amendments intended to correct errors and align with adopted plans. The first amendment corrects a mapping error at the Missoula Insight site, ensuring zoning boundaries match prior rezoning and land use place types. Three amendments implement the recently adopted Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST) Plan by rezoning identified park areas to OP-1, including sites near Scott Street, south of Broadway along the river, and Wapikiya Park. Another amendment corrects a misclassification in the Lower Rattlesnake, where a privately owned parcel was mistakenly zoned for public open space; staff recommend UR-2 zoning to match adjacent properties. Two amendments address inconsistencies in transition zones between mixed-use districts and UR-3 by adding missing UR-4 half-blocks along South 3rd Street West to maintain continuity and follow land use plan guidance. Staff also proposed zoning for the recently annexed Roseburg Story House property, recommending I-1 (light industrial) to match its previous M-1 designation. Finally, an airport hazard overlay amendment expands the overlay boundary to include areas previously regulated under Title 21’s EADA zone, reducing allowable density in high-risk areas while maintaining existing restrictions for affected properties.
Councilmembers and staff discussed the proposed airport hazard overlay and its relationship to the airport’s master plan and future second runway. Staff clarified that the amendment primarily restores the overlay to match the existing EADA zone from Title 21, minus a previously mapped “tail” that extended toward Reserve Street, which was not implemented because the land was already developed. The updated overlay reduces allowable density to four dwelling units per acre and prohibits uses that attract large crowds, such as stadiums, to enhance safety in areas prone to plane crashes. Two parcels—McNabb Flats and Paisley Place—remain outside the overlay for now because they were previously approved or built without these restrictions; staff recommends future engagement between the airport authority and these property owners before adding them to the overlay. The discussion emphasized that adopting the current recommendation establishes a baseline and does not preclude future amendments or broader conversations with the airport and neighbors. Staff also confirmed that navigation easements are required during annexation or subdivision to inform property owners of airport-related risks. Additionally, staff reiterated recommendations for neighborhood commercial size limits (3,500 sq. ft. in urban residential zones and 5,000 sq. ft. in limited urban and rural zones) and clarified that these changes aim to simplify regulations while maintaining safety and consistency.
That committee revisited strategies to increase housing density after deciding last week not to adopt amendments allowing greater building height in UR-3 and UR-4 zones. As a compromise, a proposal was introduced to raise the floor area ratio (FAR) in UR-4 from 1.2 to 1.4. This modest increase aims to support land use plan goals related to housing equity, climate, and connectivity by enabling slightly more units on typical lots without changing height limits. For example, on a common double lot of approximately 7,800 square feet in Franklin to the Fort, the current FAR of 1.2 allows about 12–13 units, while the proposed FAR of 1.4 would allow one to two additional units, totaling 13–15. The amendment is paired with a land use plan update to revise the typical lot expectation from 6–8 units to 6–10 units. Proponents emphasized that increasing housing supply, even at market rates, helps improve affordability over time and aligns with long-term city goals for housing and sustainability.
Staff provided an in-depth presentation explaining the policy basis for these standards, emphasizing that walkability is a core goal of the land use plan and is achieved through building placement, orientation, and design features such as active street frontages and pedestrian access. The Unified Development Code (UDC) retains simplified versions of six key urban form tools from the previous Design Excellence overlay, reducing complexity while maintaining essential elements like pulling buildings to the street, orienting parking to the side or rear, and requiring visible entrances and windows for safety and connectivity. Staff cautioned that removing these standards from UMU-1, UMU-2, and UMU-3 districts could perpetuate suburban development patterns and conflict with adopted land use policies, potentially requiring future plan amendments. They noted that other Montana cities use similar standards and highlighted that additions to existing buildings are exempt from build-to requirements to support sustainability goals. The discussion framed the choice as balancing flexibility with the city’s vision for walkable, urban mixed-use areas, and Council acknowledged significant public feedback on this issue.
There was an elaborate discussion regarding an amendment to limit design standards—such as build-to zones, street-facing entrances, transparency requirements, and parking restrictions—to only UMU-4, Downtown Core (DC), and Downtown Transition (DT) districts, making them voluntary in UMU-1, UMU-2, and UMU-3. The discussion centered on balancing long-term walkability and climate goals with current development realities and flexibility for businesses. Supporters of the amendment argued that existing standards are too prescriptive, create barriers for small businesses and affordable housing projects, and could delay or prevent development, especially in areas lacking infrastructure. Opponents stressed that removing these requirements risks perpetuating auto-oriented patterns and undermines the land use plan’s vision for pedestrian-friendly mixed-use areas. Staff clarified that current code already exempts additions to existing buildings and that deviation processes could be explored in Phase Two for flexibility. Council acknowledged concerns from the design community, potential unintended consequences, and the need for future refinements. Ultimately, the amendment was modified to remove language about certain auto-oriented uses (e.g., gas stations) and passed with recognition that this issue will require continued review and adjustments in future code updates.
The meeting was adjourned for a recess at 11:43 a.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 11:49 a.m.
The committee considered an amendment to allow the planning administrator to approve alternative compliance for transparency and street-facing entrance requirements in certain zoning districts. The intent was to provide flexibility for uses where these standards are impractical, such as warehouses or industrial facilities. Staff cautioned that vague criteria—such as loss prevention or climate control—would be difficult to evaluate objectively and could lead to extended review times and complex negotiations, undermining predictability. They recommended clearer exemptions for specific uses rather than broad discretionary language. Council discussed whether the amendment should apply to retail and grocery stores, ultimately agreeing to remove language related to food and beverage retail sales for now and retain exemptions for warehousing, manufacturing, and similar industrial uses. The amendment also removed a redundant provision for healthcare facilities, which had been addressed previously. Members emphasized the need for flexibility to support projects like Front Step’s mixed-use redevelopment while avoiding unnecessary delays. The motion passed with revisions, and Council acknowledged that further refinement may be needed in future code updates to balance flexibility with clarity.
Another amendment considered was to clarify flexibility for street-facing entrance requirements on parcels with multiple street frontages. The proposal would allow the required entrance to be located on the frontage that provides the most direct access from on-site parking, while other street-facing facades could meet standards through secondary entrances or enhanced pedestrian connections. The intent was to reduce ambiguity and streamline development review without overriding existing entrance requirements. Staff noted that current code already provides some flexibility but agreed the amendment could improve clarity, particularly in districts retaining build-to zone requirements. Council discussed whether this change might encourage parking-oriented site design; staff responded that it would allow such layouts but not necessarily incentivize them. Ultimately, the motion proceeded with the understanding that staff would make minor language cleanups to ensure consistency with related sections, maintaining the amendment’s intent while improving clarity.
They had a in-depth conversation regarding an amendment to consolidate the Civic District zoning categories (CD1 and CD2) into a single district citywide. Proponents argued that merging the districts would simplify the code and ensure consistent treatment of similar properties, particularly for private property owners at Fort Missoula, allowing them the same development opportunities as other civic lands. Staff cautioned that collapsing the districts would eliminate an important planning tool for distinguishing areas suitable for residential or commercial development from those intended for civic or historic preservation, such as cemeteries, schools, and environmentally sensitive lands. They noted that CD2 permits residential uses at a density of one dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet, along with additional uses like hotels and RV parks, while CD1 does not. Concerns were raised about compatibility, historic preservation, and the potential impact on Fort Missoula’s unique historic character, which includes internment camp history and longstanding community priorities for protection. Some council members suggested a more targeted approach, such as rezoning only Fort Missoula to CD2 rather than citywide consolidation. Others emphasized the need for a future, separate discussion on housing at the Fort and private property rights. Ultimately, the amendment was viewed as too broad, and several members indicated they would vote against it while supporting a more focused conversation in Phase Two.
The committee also considered a map amendment to change the zoning designation for the Ben Hughes neighborhood from LUR-2 to LUR-1. The proposal, brought forward by Councillor Nelson, was based on concerns raised by residents about the methodology used to assign LUR-2, which relied heavily on the presence of a commuter trail. Nelson argued that the trail does not currently function as a commuter route and therefore does not meet the criteria for higher-intensity zoning. He emphasized that the area could be up-zoned in the future if infrastructure improvements are made to create a true commuter connection. Several council members expressed support, noting that the amendment aligns zoning with existing conditions and responds to constituent feedback, while maintaining flexibility for future changes. Some members raised concerns about setting precedent for down-zoning based on neighborhood requests, but others clarified that this decision reflects a careful review of amenities and methodology rather than arbitrary changes. The amendment was generally supported as a reasonable adjustment to better match current conditions.
The meeting was adjourned for a recess at 1:11 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 2:11 p.m.
Another round of public comments were heard. Members of the public expressed support for certain landscape amendments to improve housing project feasibility and advocated for eliminating commercial parking requirements, noting similar actions in other cities to promote small business development. Concerns were raised about removing build-to and entry standards, emphasizing their importance for walkable communities and suggesting prioritization of bike lanes over on-street parking. Several comments warned against incremental changes that reduce housing capacity and urged maintaining flexibility for future development, including reconsideration of civic district zoning and restoring height limits in residential zones. Additional feedback highlighted challenges with mixed-use design standards, opposed high-density zoning in areas lacking amenities, and called for stronger riparian buffers to protect environmental health.
Additional discussion was held on the amendment proposing removal or modification of the Fort Missoula Historic Resource Overlay. The sponsor argued that the overlay disproportionately impacts private property owners by imposing use restrictions, unlike other historic overlays that primarily regulate design. They suggested alternatives such as making overlay participation elective or limiting it to design standards rather than use. Staff clarified that the proposed overlay is not new but a continuation of the existing neighborhood character overlay from Title 20, updated for clarity and expanded to allow additional adaptive reuse options (e.g., restaurants, lodging, artist spaces) while maintaining protections for historic context. Council members expressed concerns about eliminating or weakening the overlay, noting its role in preserving Fort Missoula’s unique historic landscape and internment camp history. Several members supported revisiting the issue in a future phase to explore options for balancing historic preservation with flexibility for private property owners, rather than making major changes during the current code reform process. The discussion concluded with agreement that this topic warrants a standalone conversation in Phase Two.
Council considered an amendment to strike language limiting community residential facilities to serving eight or fewer residents within the Fort Missoula Historic Resource Overlay. Staff explained that this change would allow larger group living facilities, such as assisted living, foster homes, or halfway houses, while still subject to other development standards. Several council members expressed that this proposal falls under a broader conversation about allowable uses at Fort Missoula rather than a standalone change. They emphasized the need for a comprehensive review of uses and design standards for the area in a future phase. As a result, members indicated they would not support the amendment at this time, preferring to address it as part of a larger discussion on Fort Missoula’s future.
The next amendment discussed was to strike language prohibiting drive-through services within the Fort Missoula Historic Resource Overlay. Initially, members assumed this would broadly allow drive-throughs for all uses, but staff clarified that the restriction only applies to adaptive reuse projects for financial services (excluding pawn shops, payday lenders, and similar businesses). The prohibition was intended to prevent installation of pneumatic tubes, which could disturb archaeological resources at the Fort. This clarification shifted the perspective of some council members, as the amendment would specifically remove protections related to historic and archaeological preservation rather than broadly expanding drive-through use.
The committee considered an amendment to add “Row House/Townhouse” as a header in the building types table to differentiate between the two. Staff clarified that under building code, row houses and townhouses are defined the same, and the proposed change would not alter rights or development options. Several members questioned the need for the amendment, viewing it as unnecessary and potentially confusing.
The next amendment proposed allowing neighborhood-scale commercial uses mid-block rather than limiting them primarily to corner lots. The sponsor argued this change would support walkable neighborhoods, increase housing opportunities above commercial spaces, and align with community survey results showing strong support for mid-block businesses. Staff explained the original restriction aimed to prevent entire blocks from converting to commercial uses, which could alter neighborhood character. Council members generally supported the amendment for its flexibility and alignment with land use goals but raised concerns about unintended consequences, such as creating strip mall-like patterns. Suggestions included adding guardrails or size limits to prevent over-concentration of commercial uses. Staff noted existing size caps and zoning rules would limit large-scale commercial development. Overall, the amendment received broad support, with members emphasizing the need for potential refinements in a future cleanup phase.
Council revisited cannabis zoning regulations, focusing on increasing buffers and limiting dispensary visibility. The sponsor explained that Missoula currently has over 50 dispensaries—far exceeding public health recommendations—and highlighted concerns about youth exposure and emergency room visits linked to cannabis products. Three proposed changes were discussed: (A) increasing buffer distances from 500 feet to 1,000 feet between dispensaries and sensitive areas like schools; (B) adding a 250-foot buffer from residential zoning to prevent dispensaries from directly facing neighborhoods; and (C) prohibiting dispensaries along state-maintained MDT routes to reduce high-visibility locations. Council members debated whether market forces should regulate dispensary numbers versus zoning restrictions, compared cannabis regulation to alcohol and casino controls, and discussed legal constraints under state law. Public health rationale emphasized cannabis’s unique risks for youth and the cultural impact of widespread visibility. While most members supported A and B, some expressed reservations about C, citing concerns about overly restricting commercial corridors and limiting future business locations. Staff provided maps showing potential impacts of these changes and clarified that existing dispensaries would be grandfathered in. The discussion concluded with agreement to vote on each proposal separately and consider refinements in future phases.
Council discussed an amendment to prohibit dog boarding kennels, including doggy daycare facilities, within 400 feet of residential zones to reduce noise impacts. Grooming and veterinary services would remain unaffected. Members noted that even indoor facilities often create noise when doors are opened. The amendment serves as an interim measure, with plans for more detailed regulations in a future phase.
Council discussed an amendment to reduce minimum landscaping in UR-1 through UR-4 zones from 20% to 15%. Staff noted this change would slightly reduce tree and shrub requirements but likely have minimal impact on housing supply. Members debated balancing development flexibility with environmental goals, stormwater management, and livability. Several expressed concern about reducing green space and tree canopy, favoring Planning Board’s broader recommendations or addressing the issue in Phase Two. The amendment was generally opposed.
Council discussed an amendment to exempt developments from providing on-site activity areas if located within 0.5 miles of a park, aligning with the PROST plan’s 10-minute walk goal. Members debated balancing infill incentives with park accessibility, maintenance costs, and equitable access, noting concerns about duplicative spaces and usability of unimproved activity areas. Staff explained current flexibility in activity area design and the role of cash-in-lieu payments, though final valuation methods are still being developed. The conversation broadened to scheduling, with agreement to continue remaining landscaping and map-related amendments during Monday’s Council meeting and, if needed, extend discussions into Wednesday’s committee session.